Second note - the plaintiff's version was supported by the testimonies of the witnesses on his behalf - beyond the plaintiff's version - which was accepted by us for the most part, as stated above - we note that the plaintiff's claims were also supported by the testimony of the witness on his behalf, Salim, whose testimony and claims were also not contradicted during his testimony;
Third note - the plaintiff's version was supported by documents and evidence - beyond the testimonies, the plaintiff's version was also supported by external and objective evidence presented to us, including in the documents of Bank Hapoalim, the National Insurance Institute, and the Tax Authority;
Fourth note - the difficulty in accepting the defendant's testimony - we found a real difficulty in the defendant's version, both in its content and in the way it was presented and developed throughout the proceeding.
The following is an example: Strangely and unclearly, the defendant initially refrained from specifying in the statement of defense whether he knew the bakery at all, and whether it belonged to any of his family members, and specifically - to his uncle Nizar. Only at a more advanced stage in the proceeding was his version of the bakery transferred to Nizar's actual ownership was argued.
Below we will detail another perplexity: in an affidavit of support that was attached to a motion for dismissal filed in the proceeding, the defendant claimed that "... I have never been in the aforementioned business." [3]He then changed his version and admitted to the visits there (although he claimed that these were only 'social' visits).
Similar conduct occurred later in the defendant's testimony at the evidentiary hearing, during which he repeatedly refrained from answering the questions addressed to him, and his testimony was evasive and unacceptable to us as a whole.
It should also be noted that the defendant and his witnesses even contradicted each other in their versions. Thus, for example, while Jamal testified that "Nizar and Tayer together" opened the mafia's bank account[4], the defendant testified that Jamal and he went to the bank (i.e., without Nizar).[5] In addition, Jamal claimed that the bakery's rent was ILS 7,000, while Nizar claimed that it was ILS 3,000.